Aglipay v Ruiz

Facts: Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition against respondent

Director of Posts from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the33rd International Eucharistic Congress. Petitioner contends that such act is aviolation of the Constitutional provision stating that no public funds shall beappropriated or used in the benefit of any church, system of religion, etc. Thisprovision is a result of the principle of the separation of church and state, for thepurpose of avoiding the occasion wherein the state will use the church, or viceversa, as a weapon to further their ends and aims. Respondent contends that suchissuance is in accordance to Act No. 4052, providing for the appropriation funds torespondent for the production and issuance of postage stamps as would beadvantageous to the government.

Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation of the freedom to religion.

Held: What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious freedom and not merereligious toleration. It is however not an inhibition of profound reverence for religionand is not a denial of its influence in human affairs. Religion as a profession of faithto an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized. And inso far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality, its influence isdeeply felt and highly appreciated. The phrase in Act No. 4052 advantageous tothe government does not authorize violation of the Constitution. The issuance ofthe stamps was not inspired by any feeling to favor a particular church or religiousdenomination. They were not sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church.The postage stamps, instead of showing a Catholic chalice as originally planned,contains a map of the Philippines and the location of Manila, with the words SeatXXXIII International Eucharistic Congress. The focus of the stamps was not theEucharistic Congress but the city of Manila, being the seat of that congress. Thiswas to to advertise the Philippines and attract more tourists, the officials merelytook advantage of an event considered of international importance. Although suchissuance and sale may be inseparably linked with the Roman Catholic Church, anybenefit and propaganda incidentally resulting from it was no the aim or purpose ofthe Government.

Aglipay V Ruiz

FACTS: On May 1936, respondent announced in the newspapers that he would order of postagestamps commemorating the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress under Act No. 4052.Petitioner, Mons. Gregorio Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Phil. Independent Church (Aglipayan),seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent respondent Director of Posts from issuing and sellingpostage stamps commemorative of the said Congress. Petitioner alleges that respondent inissuing and selling the postage stamps violated the Constitutional provision on the principle ofseparation of church and state, specifically section 13, subsection 3, Art. VI which says: Nopublic money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, or used, directly or indirectly, forthe use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination or system of religion

ISSUE: WON respondent violated the Constitution in issuing and selling the postage stamps.

HELD: No constitutional infraction.

History of Separation of Church and State: our history, not to speak of the history ofmankind, has taught us that the union of church and state is prejudicial to both, for occasionsmight arise when the state will use the church, and the church the state, as a weapon in thefurtherance of their respective ends and aims. This principle was recognized in the MalolosConstitution, inserted in the Treaty of Paris, in the instructions of McKinley to the Phil.Commission and finally embodied in the Constitution as the supreme expression of theFilipino people. Filipinos enjoy both civil and religious freedom guaranteed in the Consti.What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty, not merely religious toleration.